Bharat Lalchand Shah, Surat V. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-3, Surat

ITA 1786/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9319 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 20-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.1786/AHD/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) BHARAT LALCHAND SHAH 102, VISHAL HOUSE WORLD TRADE CENTRE RING ROAD, SURAT / VS. THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4 SURAT ' ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AFSPS 3703 B ( '% / APPELLANT ) .. ( &''% / RESPONDENT ) '% ( / APPELLANT BY : -NONE- &''% ) ( / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJAY AGRAWAL,CIT-DR * ) / DATE OF HEARING 20/01/2016 +,-. ) / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16/02/2016 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-II, AHMEDABA D [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 15/06/2011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR (AY) 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WE LL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN MAKING ITA NO.1786 /AH D/2011 BHARAT LALCHAND SHAH VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 2 - ADDITION OF RS.4,97,642/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED AND UNEXPLAINED LOAN. 2. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE B Y ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 3. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR DELETE AY G ROUND(S) EITHER BEFORE OR IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEA RCH ACTION WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE IN CONNECTION WITH JARI & TEXTILE GROUP (SUB-GROUP VISHAL) ON 20.01.2009. SU BSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (H EREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 28/12/ 2010; THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) MADE ADDITION OF RS .4,97,642/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE LOAN RECEIVED FROM SHRI DARPAN SHAH, WHO IN HIS STATEMENT HAS DENIED HAVING BEEN GIVEN THE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.4,97,642/- . THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DISMISSED THE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), NOW THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-ASSESSE E. HOWEVER, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, WRITTEN SUBMISSION HAS BEEN FILED IN THE PAPER- BOOK. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARI NG IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1786 /AH D/2011 BHARAT LALCHAND SHAH VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 3 - 4. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IN THIS ASSESSEES APP EAL IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,97,642/-. THE LD. CIT-DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.CIT-DR, PERUSED THE MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION HAS STATED T HAT IN THE STATEMENT, THE TOTAL DISCLOSURE OF RS.7.56 CRORES FOR THE ENTIRE VISHAL GROUP OUT OF WHICH RS.1 CRORE WAS MENTIONED AS FOR THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SUNDRY RECEIVABLES OF RS.90 LACS, MISCELLANEOUS DISCLOSURE OF RS.10 LACS. IT IS A CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITION IS C OVERED BY THE DISCLOSURE OF RS.1 CRORE. IT IS STATED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) WAS ON THE BASIS OF LEDGER COPIES IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE COMES TO RS.85 LACS, WHEREIN THE LD.CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY STATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN FULL BENEFIT OF DISCLOSURE OF RS.90 LACS BY SHOWING RECOVERY OF RECEIVABLES AND DEPOSITED CASH IN BANK ACCOUNT ON VARIOUS DATES. T HE FACT THAT RS.5 LACS IS OUTSTANDING IS IN FACT ACCEPTED BY THE LD.CIT(A) HIMSELF IN THE VERY PREVIOUS LINES. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBM ISSIONS OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED TO COVER THE AMOUNT OF RS.14,97,642/- AGAIN ST HIS OVERALL DISCLOSURE AMOUNT OF RS.1,00,00,000/-. BUT, ON PER USAL OF THE TRIAL BALANCE OF THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION IT IS FOUND TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS ITA NO.1786 /AH D/2011 BHARAT LALCHAND SHAH VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 4 - CLAIMED RS.90 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY RECEIVABLES AND RS.10 LACS FOR MISCELLANEOUS DISCLOSURE. THEREFORE, RS.10 LACS IS ADJUSTED OUT OF RS.14,97,642/- OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REMAINI NG RS.4,97,642/- WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE AO, IT CANNOT BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE SUNDRY RECEIVABLE. THE CONT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THIS IS ERRONEOUS ON THE PART OF THE AO. W E FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE AT PAGE NO.8 OF THE PAPER-BOOK HAS ENCLOSED LEDGER ACCOUNT WHICH IS ON INCOME DISCLOSED U/S.132AC OF THE ACT. THE SAID AM OUNT PERTAINS TO PERIOD 01/04/2008 TO 31/03/2009 AND THE SAME AMOUNT IS BROUGHT FORWARDED IN THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR AND FURTHER FO RWARDED TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE ADJUSTED THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,97,642/-, I.E. THE IMPUGNED ADDI TION. THEREFORE, THE AO IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION AND AD JUST THE AMOUNT AS REFLECTED IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT. THUS, GROUND RAIS ED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON TUESDAY, THE 16 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 16/ 02 /2016 2.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.1786 /AH D/2011 BHARAT LALCHAND SHAH VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 5 - !'#$%&' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '% / THE APPELLANT 2. &''% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 345 6 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 6 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-II, AHMEDABAD 5. 7 8 &45 , 45. , 3 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 8:; <* / GUARD FILE. ! / BY ORDER, '7 & //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 27.1.16 (DICTATION-PAD 8-- PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 29.1.16 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.16.2.16 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 16.2.16 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER